User talk:Architeuthidæ

Welcome

Hello Architeuthidæ and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Jim Jordan (American politician), do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Missvain (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Hi, did you see the edits that I removed? I don't know how my contributions could be perceived as not conforming to policies given what I was removing. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please bear in mind that as Wikipedia editors, our role is to convey the content of reliable source references according to their weight in mainstream discourse. Your personal opinions or speculations are not helpful on article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just as the barnstar says I have seen some of your talk:page arguments about bias and I appreciate them. Heres a barnstorm for what its worth. Keep up the good work. EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Unfortunately I think the problem may be systemic in how Wikipedia determines "reliability" of sources. I've heard a variety of definitions and arguments for accepting news articles at face value, and the fact that sources like Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and CNN are supposedly categorized as "non-partisan" is very disheartening to say the least. Architeuthidæ (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrived here after reading your comments on the impeachment trial talk page. It can be disheartening to work on the Wikipedia project at times, but I'm always happy to see an editor question and probe the accepted 'way things are done'. While I admit that there simply has to be a pool of sources that the community, by consensus, agrees are reliable, it doesn't mean that this can't change over time - the sources and the consensus about whether they should or should not be on the list. It is surely healthy to examine the reliability of sources on an ongoing basis. I admire any editor willing to do that battle and deal with the inevitable wall of protest. RandomGnome (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk hears you, too. It's as if "bias" itself has become like a slur to folks who tend to use it that way against others. So if you're genuinely concerned with objective fairness, you'll inevitably have to remind folks that they are like the others. This will naturally paint you as "one of them". The others, I mean. Not the folks. Don't worry about it, though; most people around here are neither folk nor other, just seem that way if we're somehow "forced" to pick a hand. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember falsely accusing me of making false accusations against CNN? It was long enough ago. November 3, 2018. We both moved on and prospered. Good times! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you accused me of "sounding yet more like a conspiracy theorist" on the day before Halloween before last. That had scabbed over, but now it kind of stings. Has the statute of limitations run out, or can I still allege you were trying to defame me there? That's a joke, by the way, I'm already over it again. You had your reasons, I get it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It shows how mild incivility has long gone unpunished around here. You've let each other know how you were harmed, that open dialogue is remedy enough. Accusing someone of defamation here is not a legal threat, as it would be in a real court. But implicitly threatening an editor's future prospects in the same breath as discussion of a crime gives the whole conflict an element of mock adversarialism (or a "battleground mentality", as it was called in our youth). You don't want it, I don't want it, nobody wants it. We just all want to win it when shit inevitably happens. You know what winning really is? Absolute forgiveness and understanding. Send the pain below, as the old song goes. It's much like suffocating, but suffocating a fire inside feels much better than having it constantly erupt and eternally burn the side of us others see, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never move another editor's comment in a way that violates the intention of the editor

Never move another editor's (in this case an admin's) comment in a manner that violates WP:Refactor. I fixed it. That you chose to take offense at a rather neutral and factual comment about how things have always worked here (at least since 2003 when I started editing here) is your own problem. Don't use your own offense to attack other editors. In fact, just don't be so sensitive. This place is not a battlefield, so don't treat it like one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir already took care of it. You're late to the party, I'm afraid. What's this business with everybody demanding things of people? "Don't do this!" "Never do that!" Nobody's civil anymore. Everybody should just lighten up. Imagine running to people's talk pages to air out grievances. It's Friday, man! Enjoy yourself- that's an order. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, some of us still have 31 minutes left till amazing weekend adventures are permissible. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! You're right, I should've been more inclusive. Enjoy your weekend however you decide to spend it - I can guarantee I won't be spending my time here. Tranquility is the goal. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]